[License-review] Request - For Approval - Ritchey Permissive License v11

[Joshua Gay]

I recommend rejecting this license because of the following restriction
placed on "any legal proceedings" seems bad for everyone (including the
courts):

"Any legal proceedings related to this license may only occur in the courts
of British Columbia."

Josh


Joshua Gay
Open Source Community Manager
IEEE Standards Association
(617) 966-9792
j.gay at ieee.org

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 3:31 AM J. Ritchey <x1x2c3+osi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Submitting 'Ritchey Permissive License v11' for approval.
>
> License Text:
>
>> Ritchey Permissive License v11:
>>
>> Subject to the terms of this license, any legal entity who receives
>> material licensed under this license is granted royalty-free, perpetual,
>> non-exclusive, permission to do anything lawful with the material which
>> does not violate this license. Permissions are automatically revoked
>> permanently from the legal entity upon breach of this license. The material
>> is provided "as is", without implied fitness for any purpose. All
>> obligations to the legal entity (including warranties, liabilities,
>> representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees) are disclaimed by
>> all parties involved (including the authors, rights holders, copyright
>> holders, patent holders, and providers of the material). The legal entity
>> is responsible for all consequences of sharing the material, and all
>> obligations to recipients (including warranties, liabilities,
>> representations, obligations, damages, and guarantees). The material must
>> entirely remain solely under this license. This license is governed by the
>> laws of the province of British Columbia (as they were on April 21, 2019),
>> and the applicable laws of Canada (as they were on April 21, 2019). Any
>> legal proceedings related to this license may only occur in the courts of
>> British Columbia. The legal entity must be capable of being bound to this
>> entire license, and agrees to be. If any portions of this license are
>> unenforceable in applicable jurisdictions, this license cannot be accepted.
>> The license text is provided under these terms.
>>
>
> Rationale:
> First released in 2015 *(then named Comprehensible Open License)*, the
> Ritchey Permissive License aims to provide wide permissions, and ask little
> in return. It also strives to use plain language where possible *(this
> was the inspiration for its original name, and originally was prioritized
> above all else)*, and limit its size. The goals of this license are not
> unique, but the manner in which they are achieved is. That's what makes it
> a useful alternative to existing options, and is my rationale for
> submitting it.
>
> Distinguish:
> In terms of comparison to already OSI approved licenses, the Ritchey
> Permissive License v11 is most similar to the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License
> (ISC), MIT No Attribution License, Fair License (Fair), MIT License, and
> 2-Clause BSD License. These licenses are all short, and grant wide
> permissions. But there are important differences.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD license, and MIT No Attribution License, this
> license does not require a copy of the license to be included when
> distributing a work. This feature could result in downstream recipients of
> a work never seeing important disclaimers. Unlike the Zero-Clause BSD, and
> MIT No Attribution License, this license tries to provide some protection
> against that by shifting these responsibilities to the person sharing the
> work.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD, Fair License (Fair), ISC License (ISC), MIT
> License, and 2-Clause BSD License it provides wide permissions. However
> they use a whitelist approach (eg: you can do x, y, z), and this license
> uses mostly a blacklist approach (eg: you can't do x, y, z). This
> difference is important, because x, y, and z may not be interpreted as
> intended. A whitelist approach prioritizes protecting a work. A blacklist
> approach prioritizes protecting the freedom of people to use the work. The
> MIT No Attribution License uses a blacklist approach, but the difference in
> wording may make one license more appealing than the other to potential
> users.
>
> Like the Fair License (Fair) which refers to products as "works" the
> Ritchey Permissive License v11 uses the inclusive term "material" so that
> the license can be better used with things beyond software (eg:
> documentation, icon packs, etc). The difference in the definitions of these
> terms may make one license more desirable over the other to potential users.
>
> Like the Zero-Clause BSD, ISC License (ISC), Fair License (Fair), MIT
> License, and 2-Clause BSD License the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is a
> short license that doesn't include a definitions section like larger
> licenses do. Unlike them, it binds itself to a jurisdiction, setting a
> basis for how terms may be interpreted.
>
> Legal review:
> No legal review of this license has been done. None is planned.
>
> Proliferation Category:
> I suggest the "Other/Miscellaneous licenses" category, because of its ties
> to Canadian law. While the license isn't made for Canadians, this link may
> limit its appeal to foreigners.
>
> In summary, the Ritchey Permissive License v11 is similar to existing
> options, but differences in features, or wording make it a useful
> alternative. That's why it was made.
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20210215/a6da56b8/attachment.html>